I don't know why he said they can't just reduce the price of ordnance. They can do a modification that does a blanket -1 point reduction to all ordnance equipped, or something that reduces the price of a second torp or missile. There is already precedent as they simply reduced the price of the A-wing. Problem with the Bombers/ Y-wings is that taking that second missile makes them super expensive. Even a lowly Scimitar is 24 points with 2 proton torps. That puts them into Doom Shuttle, 2 Academy Pilot, and now Tie Advanced range. All those can probably put out as much damage or more reliable damage.

Just putting out an FAQ that says "All Missiles and Torpedoes are 1 pt cheaper" is not something most game companies want to do. It just goes against what's on the card and those that don't hang out online never hear of it. It's messy. Lots of companies just don't want to do it.

So, if you aren't going to do that, what possible thing can you do that would be reasonable to reduce the price of ordnance? That is rhetorical, though. It is not an invitation to give examples of how you can.

Nice write up! How long did you have him tied up in a chair though?

I don't know why he said they can't just reduce the price of ordnance. They can do a modification that does a blanket -1 point reduction to all ordnance equipped, or something that reduces the price of a second torp or missile. There is already precedent as they simply reduced the price of the A-wing. Problem with the Bombers/ Y-wings is that taking that second missile makes them super expensive. Even a lowly Scimitar is 24 points with 2 proton torps. That puts them into Doom Shuttle, 2 Academy Pilot, and now Tie Advanced range. All those can probably put out as much damage or more reliable damage.

...

Undoubtedly, we will likely get a turret wielding scum ship to keep the factions even. I'd like to see them explore ships with different firing arcs or even different size bases.

First off, such a mod would still be pretty bad, I think. Not because getting a discount on ordnance is bad, but because you're giving up your mod slot for it. But it is one of the easier methods. It's just that I think it makes ordnance on TIE Bombers, Y-wings, and B-wings make sense, but it's still not very good for an X-wing. I think X-wings would still prefer Engine Upgrade.

As for turrets in Scum, we have Y-wings and HWK-290s that can take turrets already. You probably meant a ship with turrets for primary weapons. Honestly, I don't think they need to "even the score" at all between factions. Factions should feel different and if they never have a turret ship for Scum, I fully support that decision. In other words, I hope they don't try to get a turret in there. If a ship has a turret by lore, then fine. For example, I could see them going for a turret upgrade slot on the Jumpmaster 5000.

I don't know why he said they can't just reduce the price of ordnance. They can do a modification that does a blanket -1 point reduction to all ordnance equipped, or something that reduces the price of a second torp or missile. There is already precedent as they simply reduced the price of the A-wing. Problem with the Bombers/ Y-wings is that taking that second missile makes them super expensive. Even a lowly Scimitar is 24 points with 2 proton torps. That puts them into Doom Shuttle, 2 Academy Pilot, and now Tie Advanced range. All those can probably put out as much damage or more reliable damage.

Just putting out an FAQ that says "All Missiles and Torpedoes are 1 pt cheaper" is not something most game companies want to do. It just goes against what's on the card and those that don't hang out online never hear of it. It's messy. Lots of companies just don't want to do it.

So, if you aren't going to do that, what possible thing can you do that would be reasonable to reduce the price of ordnance? That is rhetorical, though. It is not an invitation to give examples of how you can.

I never said anything about an FAQ. The Chardaan refit is an actual card that reduces the price of a ship, albeit with the price of taking up the missile slot. The same can be done for ordnance and by taking up the modification slot which really isn't used by a Bomber at all, well except that awful MF card.

Invitation rejected.

I would think a title card would do it better, though. Still....you going to make Flechette torps free, though?

I would think a title card would do it better, though. Still....you going to make Flechette torps free, though?

Exactly. They realized ordnance was already expensive, and tried to fix that with the newer Flechettes. This creates a problem.

I think the solution here are titles for each ship. A Bomber title saying something like "missiles, torpedoes, and bombs cost 1-2 less to a minimum of 1."

Same can be done for Y-wings, sans missiles. Maybe B-wings, as they're supposed to be something of a heavy fighter. As if B-wings needed more love...sheesh. Maybe not them, though I really think Nera needs it.

As for turrets in Scum, we have Y-wings and HWK-290s that can take turrets already. You probably meant a ship with turrets for primary weapons. Honestly, I don't think they need to "even the score" at all between factions. Factions should feel different and if they never have a turret ship for Scum, I fully support that decision. In other words, I hope they don't try to get a turret in there. If a ship has a turret by lore, then fine. For example, I could see them going for a turret upgrade slot on the Jumpmaster 5000.

There's always the possibility of going for a 180 degree forward firing arc...

As for turrets in Scum, we have Y-wings and HWK-290s that can take turrets already. You probably meant a ship with turrets for primary weapons. Honestly, I don't think they need to "even the score" at all between factions. Factions should feel different and if they never have a turret ship for Scum, I fully support that decision. In other words, I hope they don't try to get a turret in there. If a ship has a turret by lore, then fine. For example, I could see them going for a turret upgrade slot on the Jumpmaster 5000.

There's always the possibility of going for a 180 degree forward firing arc...

Or the 270 everything-but-the-back arc

Great article!

I would think a title card would do it better, though. Still....you going to make Flechette torps free, though?

Exactly. They realized ordnance was already expensive, and tried to fix that with the newer Flechettes. This creates a problem.

I think the solution here are titles for each ship. A Bomber title saying something like "missiles, torpedoes, and bombs cost 1-2 less to a minimum of 1."

Same can be done for Y-wings, sans missiles. Maybe B-wings, as they're supposed to be something of a heavy fighter. As if B-wings needed more love...sheesh. Maybe not them, though I really think Nera needs it.

Yeah, you would have to have the minimum of 1 point in there. You don't want to make fletchettes free. It is harder to make ordnance viable across the board though.

I think B-wings will still rather take a Cannon or system upgrades then load up with ordnance. Nera being the exception. I like her ability, but see gets really expensive really quick if you try to take anything but fletchettes.

Well done sir, good solid questions covering a wide array of stuff.

He did NOT say a Defender/E-Wing pack was being planned or in development. He said that he, personally, thought it would be a neat thing to do.

I just don't want to read 3 months from now that "One of the designers said wave 8 was going to be an e-wing/defender aces pack". That ISN'T what just happened.

Wait. You seem to be implying something here. Let's take a closer look at your words and read between the lines.

He did... say a Defender/E-Wing pack was being planned or in development. He said that he, personally, thought it would be a neat thing to do.... "One of the designers said wave 8 was going to be an e-wing/defender aces pack". That IS... what just happened.

OMG WE'RE GETTING A DEFENDER/E-WING PACK!

( )

In seriousness, I'm excited by the potential for new bombs. I was surprised that we went through Waves 4, 5 and 6 without anything new being added to that particular ordinance slot. Just based on previous design decisions, Ion and Flechette Bombs seem like pretty easy options to add.

he was mingling for a bit before and after the official Q&A., which was between rounds 2 and 3 of the tournament. We had a tight schedule so the Q&A wad maybe a half hour at most?

hard to remember lol. It was such a long day ivemlost track of all the timing...

It does bode well for the game too.

Alex seems like a really cool guy. I think it's great that he came out to that event to mingle and chat about the game.

I'm quite interested about what he had to say about objective-based play. As a prolific scenario writer in Mission Control, I've often wondered about the current tournament format, the prevalence of 'deathmatch' style games, and the place of objective-based play in X-wing. Many wargames are deeply rooted in objective-based play, but X-wing is a little different; the maneuvering system doesn't make it easy to hold ground, and the theme of the game doesn't easily lend itself to thematic but competitive objectives.

Epic games probably have the most to gain from objective-based play, since they are on a larger scale and lend themselves to more strategic, rather than tactical play.

Many wargames are deeply rooted in objective-based play, but X-wing is a little different; the maneuvering system doesn't make it easy to hold ground, and the theme of the game doesn't easily lend itself to thematic but competitive objectives.

I'd like to see a map set near an asteroid mining base, where the attacker needs to blow up the base and retreat, and the defender needs to hold onto the base for a set amount of time- representing reinforcements coming into the fight, and a modified loss for the attacker.

It would take some work to make it balance right, but the inability of the defenders to stand still, while holding onto a stationary target, would be interesting.

I'd like to see a map set near an asteroid mining base, where the attacker needs to blow up the base and retreat, and the defender needs to hold onto the base for a set amount of time- representing reinforcements coming into the fight, and a modified loss for the attacker.

So, the attack on the Death Star at a smaller scale.

Would be fun. I think the base would need at least some token static defense guns though, not to mention shields.

Alex seems like a really cool guy. I think it's great that he came out to that event to mingle and chat about the game.

I'm quite interested about what he had to say about objective-based play. As a prolific scenario writer in Mission Control, I've often wondered about the current tournament format, the prevalence of 'deathmatch' style games, and the place of objective-based play in X-wing. Many wargames are deeply rooted in objective-based play, but X-wing is a little different; the maneuvering system doesn't make it easy to hold ground, and the theme of the game doesn't easily lend itself to thematic but competitive objectives.

Epic games probably have the most to gain from objective-based play, since they are on a larger scale and lend themselves to more strategic, rather than tactical play.

We didn't talk about specifics of what an objective based competetive mode could be. Just that they're awesome in IA and something similar could be cool in X-Wing if done properly.

Alex seems like a really cool guy. I think it's great that he came out to that event to mingle and chat about the game.

I'm quite interested about what he had to say about objective-based play. As a prolific scenario writer in Mission Control, I've often wondered about the current tournament format, the prevalence of 'deathmatch' style games, and the place of objective-based play in X-wing. Many wargames are deeply rooted in objective-based play, but X-wing is a little different; the maneuvering system doesn't make it easy to hold ground, and the theme of the game doesn't easily lend itself to thematic but competitive objectives.

Epic games probably have the most to gain from objective-based play, since they are on a larger scale and lend themselves to more strategic, rather than tactical play.

We didn't talk about specifics of what an objective based competetive mode could be. Just that they're awesome in IA and something similar could be cool in X-Wing if done properly.

Right; I didn't think you were holding back or anything just that it was interesting that he had given the subject some thought.

Hey guys, finally finished the article. Sorry if I took too long. I had a busy day and Word Press was being stupid. Thanks for your patience.

LINK TO THE ARTICLE HERE

Anybody know what the second ship IB the HWK pic is? Or for that matter the cover ship on the Stay onTarget expansion for Age of Rebellion?

Interesting article. Though I dislike that they won't be doing card only expansions. It seems to me that is exactly what the Scum faction needs. More maneuver dials and ship cards to use the models people already have.

Bring it!

I think the ship chasing the HWK-290 is a Kihraxz Assault Fighter. The ship on the cover of Stay On Target is a PTB-625 planetary bomber.

Interesting article. Though I dislike that they won't be doing card only expansions. It seems to me that is exactly what the Scum faction needs. More maneuver dials and ship cards to use the models people already have.

Interesting article. Though I dislike that they won't be doing card only expansions. It seems to me that is exactly what the Scum faction needs. More maneuver dials and ship cards to use the models people already have.

Rebels could use some new dials as well, to use with the scum Z-95 and Y-Wing models.

Exactly! The purchase of a Z95 expansion, Y-wing expansion and Most Wanted pack SHOULD enable a player to field a squad of 3 Z95s and 2 Y's for either faction, but it doesn't. FFG is ridiculously requiring redundant purchasing of duplicate models just to run the squads a player already possesses.